Page 1 of 6 IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HAR HARYANA v. CR-2-2025
Case Details
Page 1 of 6 IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HAR HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 129 Juhruddin & O & Others Abdul Rajjak & jak & Others Vs. CR-2-2025(O&M) Date of order: 07.01.2025 (s) …..Petitioner(s) (s) …..Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr.Akshay Kumar Jindal, A for the petitioners. , Advocate ta, J. Nidhi Gupta, J ***** Challenge in the present ed nt petition is to the order dated 4 16.11.2024 (Annexure P10) whereby y application filed by he the petitioners/th s/third party objectors for givin he iving opportunity to press the objections/res /restoration of the objections, has ing has been dismissed; AND setting aside the ord order dated 13.09.2023 (Annexure rty xure P11) vide which third party objections of t of the petitioners, has been dismis missed as not pressed. 2. Learned counsel for the he the petitioners submits that the third party ob y objections of the petitioners hav as have been wrongly dismissed as not pressed v ed vide order dated 13.09.2023 (An of (Annexure P11), as, a perusal of the zimni orde orders (Annexure P7) reveals that on hat the matter was adjourned on 05.08.2023 an 3 and 17.08.2023 in view of the pre ion prevailing law and order situation in the area as a as well as imposition of curfew/S of w/Section 144 Cr.P.C. because of which none h e had appeared before the Court ed urt on 13.9.2023. It is submitted that in view o w of this fact, even the applicatio for cation filed by the petitioners for SUNENA 2025.01.09 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document restoration of n of the said objections, has been he been wrongly dismissed vide the Page 2 of 6 impugned ord order dated 16.11.2024 (Annexure ure P10). 3. 4. Heard. Brief facts of the case nt case are that the respondent
Legal Reasoning
No.1/plaintiff tiff had filed a suit for perma he rmanent injunction against the respondents N ts No.2 to 4/defendants for restrai to straining the respondents No.2 to 4 from interfe erfering in the peaceful possession he sion of respondent No.1 over the suit land. The The respondents No.2 to 4 had cont int contested the suit and filed a joint written statem atement stating that the defendan are dants/respondents No.2 to 4 are actual owners ners in possession of suit land. Su by . Subsequently, the suit filed by respondent N t No.1 was decreed in favour of re nt f respondent No.1 vide judgment dated 11.06.2 .06.2012 (Annexure P1) and res re respondents No.2 to 4 were restrained from fr interfering in the poss nt possession of the respondent No.1/plaintiff. tiff. Even appeal against judgm as dgment dated 11.06.2012 was dismissed by by the learned Additional District ed trict Judge vide judgment dated 24.12.2012 (A 2 (Annexure P2). Subsequently, exe 3) , execution petition (Annexure P3) was filed by by the plaintiff/decree holder/re he /respondent No.1 in which the respondents N ts No.2 to 4 were proceeded agai ed against ex parte vide order dated 06.05.2017 (A 7 (Annexure P4). In the said execu s xecution petition, the petitioners had filed thi third party objections on 06.0 he 06.05.2017 (Annexure P5). The respondent No t No.1/decree holder had duly filed ed filed reply to the objections dated 06.05.2017 (A 7 (Annexure P6). However, as pe ers per the record, the petitioners failed to app appear before the learned Exec on xecuting Court. Accordingly, on SUNENA 2025.01.09 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 3 of 6 06.09.2023, f 3, following order was passed by ior d by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fero Ferozepur Jhirka:- “Today, case called several times for imes since morning but counsel for the applicants/third party objec ent objectors has not come present before this court. In the interest o on rest of justice, now to come up on 13.09.2023 for awaiting presen rty resence of applicant/third party objectors and for further proceedi ceedings.”. 5. On 13.09.2023, as the pet in petitioners again failed to put in appearance, th e, the third-party objections filed b ot ed by them were dismissed as not pressed; and nd following order was passed: - “Today the case was fixed for ird for presence of applicants/third party objectors in view of order d led der dated 06.09.2023. Case called several times, since morning but alf but none has appeared on behalf of the applicants/third party obje M. objectors. It is already 03:45 P.M. Waited sufficiently. Further wait cts wait is not justified. As per facts and circumstances, it appears th rty rs that the applicants/third party objectors are not desirous to proc ed proceed with the objections raised by them. As such, the third pa the d party objections raised by the applicants/ objectors namely Ju nd ly Juhruddin, Altaf, Arshad and Saddam sons of Chand Khan are ot n are hereby dismissed being not pressed upon. Now to come up her e up on 22.09.2023 for further proceedings.” 6. On 22.09.2023, keeping he ing in mind the fact that the judgment and and decree under execution was of as dated 11.6.2012, warrants of possession q n qua suit land were ed issued in ee favour of the decree holder/respon spondent No.1; and the following or g order was passed: - SUNENA 2025.01.09 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 4 of 6 “From the perusal of the case file ent e file it transpires that the present execution petition pertains the ex nd he execution of the judgment and decree dated 11.06.2012. It has b ve has been stated that the JDs have dispossessed the decree holder fr est er from the suit land and request is made to issue the warrant of p her of possession of suit land. Further the JDs have turned ex parte o the te on dated 06.05.2017 and the objection raised by the applican as licants/third party objectors has also been dismissed being not pr ted ot pressed upon vide order dated 13.09.2023. As such, let warrant in rant of possession qua the land in dispute be issued in favour of the the DH for 13.10.2023.” 7. Subsequently, the petiti etitioners ion filed an application seeking settin etting aside of the above said ord by order dated 13.9.2023 whereby their third-pa party objections were dismisse aid issed as not pressed. The said application of of the petitioners has been dismi er ismissed vide the impugned order dated 16.11.2 11.2024, observing that the learned as rned court had given as many as 15 effective ve opportunities to the petitioners ot ners, yet the objections had not been pressed. sed. It was further rightly observe ow erved by the learned court below that the decre ecree under execution is dated as he as far back as 11.6.2012, yet the decree-holder lder is unable to enjoy the fruits of uits thereof. The relevant part of order dated 16 d 16.11.2024, is as under: - “5. This Court has heard the rival c nd rival contentions of the parties and perused the file carefully and is of fit is of the view that this is not a fit case to allow the present appli en application. The court had given sufficient effective opportunities his ities to the applicant to press his objections as a third party, precis till recisely 15 opportunities, and still the objections were not pressed act essed. Then, considering the fact that, the present execution petitio as etition (the judgment in which was SUNENA 2025.01.09 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 5 of 6 passed ion 11.06.2012) is pending t 8 ding since 2016 and that almost 8 years have elapsed but still the d led the decree holder has not availed the fruits of decree, allowing th ot g the present application is not justified. This will amount to gro ju er. gross injustice for decree holder. Also, sufficient opportunities w ent es were given to the present applicant earlier but he did not at not press his objections and that now, when the same are dismisse nts issed being not pressed, he wants to press the same by moving t his ing this present application. This appears to this court nothing bu ent g but a tool to delay the present execution petition. 6. Also, it is pertinent to mention the tion here the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rahul S r hul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi (2021 6 SCC 418) wh the wherein it was held that the executing Court must conclude t a ude the execution cases within a period of SIX MONTHS. Hence, it at ce, it is the mandate of law that decree must be executed within s ent thin six months and in the present case, allowing the present ap at t application will frustrate that mandate. When the applicant ha ies, nt had 15 effective opportunities, he did not use them effectively ere tively and when the same were dismissed being not pressed, t as d, the present application was moved. Hence, even the principles the ciples of equity do not warrant the admission of present application a ge tion as no one can take advantage of his own wrong and that delay d lay defeats equity. 7. Also, the proper remedy for ord file r order dated 13.09.2023 is to file revision before proper authority u nd rity under section 115 of CPC and not the present application. Also do Also, order dated 19.09.2023 do not fits into any category of or of f orders mentioned in Rule 1 of Order XLIII CPC and thus it is no t a is not an appealable order but a revisable one.” SUNENA 2025.01.09 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8. Ld. Counsel for the petitio or etitioners is unable to dispute or Page 6 of 6 controvert th t the above said facts and finding no dings. In view of the above, no ground is mad made out to interfere in the impu ion impugned order. Present petition accordingly sta ly stands dismissed. 9. Pending application(s) if an
Decision
any also stand(s) disposed of. 07.01.2025 Sunena (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether Whether her speaking/reasoned her reportable Yes/No Yes/No SUNENA 2025.01.09 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document